A G BENJAMIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought from the judgment of the Punjab High court, dated 3/11/1965 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 21-D of 1965

(2.) The appellant-A. G. Benjamin-was temporarily employed as a Stores Officer in the central Tractor Organisation with effect from 14/09/1949. As he was not a confirmed government servant. his services could be terminated under Rule 5 of the central Civil service (Temporary Service) Rules 1949 with one months notice on either side. Under this rule the services of the appellant were terminated on 23/04/1954, the date on which the notice was served upon him. It appears that there were certain complaints made against the appellant while he was employed as Stores Officer in the central Tractor organisation. In respect of these complaints the Chairman of the central Tractor Organisation sent a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. At first Sri Bhagwan Singh, Deputy Chairman of his Organisation was appointed as Enquiry Officer, but on his transfer Sri R. N. Mathur, was appointed on 13/08/1953 to conduct the enquiry. Before the enquiry could be completed, the Chairman recommended that the services of the appellant should be terminated under Rule 5 of the central Civil Service (Temporary Service Rules, 1949 by granting him one month's salary in lieu of notice. In his note to the secretary the Chairman observed that 'the departmental proceedingswill take a much longer time and we are not sure whether after going through all the formalities we will be able to deal with the accused in the way he deserves'. The Chairman therefore, suggested that action should be taken under Rule 5 for termination of the services of the appellant after one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. The recommendation was accepted by the Minister and in consequence the impugned order dated 23/04/1954, was passed by the Chairman. The material part of this order reads as follows:-

(3.) The question to be considered in this appeal is whether the order of the Union government dated 23/04/1954 is an order by which punishment has been inflicated upon the appellant and whether it is consequently an order of dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution.